National Louis UniversityDigital Commons@NLU
Dissertations
12-2014
Closing the Achievement Gap in ElementarySchools: A Policy Advocacy DissertationNicole VillaverdeNational-Louis University
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/diss
Part of the Educational Leadership Commons, and the Elementary and Middle and SecondaryEducation Administration Commons
This Dissertation - Public Access is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons@NLU. It has been accepted for inclusion inDissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@NLU. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Recommended CitationVillaverde, Nicole, "Closing the Achievement Gap in Elementary Schools: A Policy Advocacy Dissertation" (2014). Dissertations. 90.https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/diss/90
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS:
A POLICY ADVOCACY DISSERTATION
Nicole Villaverde
Educational Leadership Doctoral Program
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements of
Doctor of Education
in the Foster G. McGaw Graduate School
National College of Education
National Louis University
December, 2014
Copyright by Nicole Villaverde, 2014
All rights reserved
NLU Digital Commons Document Origination Statement
This document was created as one part of the three-part dissertation requirement of the
National Louis University (NLU) Educational Leadership (EDL) Doctoral Program. The National
Louis Educational Leadership EdD is a professional practice degree program (Shulman et al.,
2006).
For the dissertation requirement, doctoral candidates are required to plan, research, and
implement three major projects, one each year, within their school or district with a focus on
professional practice. The three projects are:
Program Evaluation
Change Leadership Plan
Policy Advocacy Document
For the Program Evaluation candidates are required to identify and evaluate a program or
practice within their school or district. The “program” can be a current initiative; a grant project;
a common practice; or a movement. Focused on utilization, the evaluation can be formative,
summative, or developmental (Patton, 2008). The candidate must demonstrate how the
evaluation directly relates to student learning.
In the Change Leadership Plan candidates develop a plan that considers organizational
possibilities for renewal. The plan for organizational change may be at the building or district
level. It must be related to an area in need of improvement, and have a clear target in mind. The
candidate must be able to identify noticeable and feasible differences that should exist as a
result of the change plan (Wagner et al., 2006).
In the Policy Advocacy Document candidates develop and advocate for a policy at the local,
state or national level using reflective practice and research as a means for supporting and
promoting reforms in education. Policy advocacy dissertations use critical theory to address
moral and ethical issues of policy formation and administrative decision making (i.e., what ought
to be). The purpose is to develop reflective, humane and social critics, moral leaders, and
competent professionals, guided by a critical practical rational model (Browder, 1995).
Works Cited Browder, L.H. (1995). An alternative to the doctoral dissertation: The policy advocacy concept
and the policy document. Journal of School Leadership, 5, 40-69. Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shulman, L.S., Golde, C.M., Bueschel, A.C., & Garabedian, K.J. (2006). Reclaiming education’s
doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 25-32. Wagner, T., et al. (2006). Change leadership: A practical guide to transforming our schools. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 4.21.14
i
ABSTRACT
My paper details a policy recommendation for elementary schools in a large
school district in Florida. Its aim is to provide equal educational opportunities and equity
for all students. I developed it in part based on an educational, economic, social,
political, and moral-ethical analysis. My policy's purpose is to enhance the educational
experience for all children, maximize time-on-task (TOT) on all subjects, and close the
achievement gap. It discourages the use of the pull-out program for remediation in
reading and/or other areas. My new policy, combining the collaborative specialization
model, which I developed, with a push-in program, will provide students the required
TOT to maximize learning in all subjects without getting pulled out for remediation.
PREFACE
The policy advocacy project has been the most challenging piece of the
dissertation process. I have learned many leadership lessons throughout this journey.
ii
After completing my Program Evaluation Proposal (PEP) and the Change Leadership
Plan (CLP), a few concerns arose with regards to how my school is trying to close the
achievement gap. As a current teacher leader, it is hard to sit back and see that not all
students are receiving an adequate education because they are constantly being pulled-out
to receive reading remediation during core subject areas. As a leader, one must look for
the best interest of all students and make adjustments to meet their needs.
The current problem of pulling out students for reading in my school was the
motivation for my proposed policy. Currently, schools in my school district have been
trying to close the achievement gap by implementing different versions of pull-out
programs, which resulted in students losing time-on-task (TOT) in other subjects. As a
leader, my goal in designing this proposal was to help struggling students receive the
necessary TOT in order to learn in all subject areas, while receiving the necessary
assistance in reading that they may require. It is all about proficiency. Providing
students with the TOT they need does show that it makes a difference with student
achievement. I am hopeful that my study and recommendations will help not only my
school, but other schools and districts change the way they remediate students and
thereby enhance their learning in all curricular areas.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost I want to thank my mom for her endless love and support
throughout this journey. Thank you for pushing me and encouraging me my entire life.
You told me to “go for it” and I did. Without your love and support I would have never
been able to complete this work. To my father, who is not physically with me, but
iii
always guiding me, I dedicate this dissertation to you. I love you both with all my heart
and cannot thank you enough for everything you have done for me.
To my sister Monica, Thank you for always being there, inspiring me, helping
me, and giving me the words of encouragement I needed at times. I love you!
I am grateful for all the love and support my grandparents and godmother have
given me. You all not only believed in me, but made this a reality by helping me with the
finances of this doctoral degree.
I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my committee chair, Dr. Jim
Schott. Your leadership, words of encouragement, constructive feedback, and wisdom
have made this process an enjoyable one. I am truly honored to have had you as my
chair. Thank you for your friendship and countless hours working with me on this
process. Without your guidance and support, it would have been next to impossible for
me to complete this journey.
I want to acknowledge the National Louis University faculty, Dr. Jim Schott, Dr.
Daniel Buckman, Dr. Carol Burg, and Dr. Stu Carrier, for providing me with the
educational knowledge I will need as a future leader. I would also like to thank my
doctoral cohort group (TA001), especially Nancy Martinez, a close friend and colleague.
Without you, I would have been alone in this journey. Thank you for sharing this
adventure with me. I will forever treasure our friendship.
To my canine family, past and present, thank you for the love and entertainment
you have provided me throughout the years. Lord knows that I needed those breaks
throughout this process. Baby and Bella, you are appreciated!
iv
To my extended family, thanks for all your love and support. You all have been
my inspiration and given me the strength I needed to accomplish this goal.
Thank you to the faculty, staff, and students who participated in my research.
Without your assistance I would have never been able to complete these studies.
v
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work in the memory of my father, Manny Villaverde, and
grandfather, Jose R. Villaverde. Although you are both no longer with me physically, I
know that you have been guiding me through this process and cheering along the way. I
miss you both and know that you are always with me.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... i
PREFACE ............................................................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ ii
DEDICATION .................................................................................................................... v
SECTION ONE: VISION STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1
Introduction to the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Critical Issues ...................................................................................................................... 4
Recommended Policy and Envisioned Effect ..................................................................... 8
SECTION TWO: NEEDS ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 14
Moral/Ethical Analysis ..................................................................................................... 14
Education Analysis ........................................................................................................... 15
Social Analysis.................................................................................................................. 16
Political Analysis .............................................................................................................. 18
Economic Analysis ........................................................................................................... 21
SECTION THREE: ADVOCATED POLICY STATEMENT ....................................... 24
Goals and Objectives of the Policy ................................................................................... 24
Stakeholders Related to the Policy ................................................................................... 26
Rationale for the Validity of the Policy ............................................................................ 27
SECTION FOUR: POLICY ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 28
Pros ................................................................................................................................... 28
Cons .................................................................................................................................. 29
SECTION FIVE: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................................... 31
SECTION SIX: POLICY ASSESSMENT PLAN ............................................................ 33
SECTION SEVEN: POLICY IMPACT STATEMENT .................................................. 35
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 39
1
SECTION ONE: VISION STATEMENT
Introduction to the Problem
Imagine an elementary school where all teachers are able to differentiate their
students’ lessons daily in order to meet their individual learning needs; that would be a
school where all students would be making academic gains in all subject areas. However,
the truth of the matter is there is not enough time for one teacher to make individual
lesson plans for each child in her classroom. As a result, students in the same classroom
receive the same lesson even if they are three grade levels behind. The reality is, not all
students are at the same level and although teachers do their best to close the achievement
gaps, by the time some of these students get to the third grade, the gaps are often much
wider. The achievement gap I am referring to is the disparity that exists today between
the academic achievement of students in low-income areas and minority students,
including English Language Learners and the other more advantaged students. The gap
seems to be continuously growing.
Students entering the third grade have gaps that range from kindergarten skills,
where they are unable to pronounce letters, to second grade skills where they cannot
comprehend what they are reading. The ideal state would be having all students ready to
enter kindergarten. Research has confirmed the theory that the younger children are, the
easier it is for them to learn as their cognitive development is at the optimal level to learn
and retain information (Jha, 2012). Research has also shown that the achievement gap
that exists between kindergarten students tends to widen through the school years (Early
Education for All, 2005). In fact, young struggling students who enter school behind
2
their classmates are unlikely to ever catch up, therefore contributing to a great extent to
the achievement gap our schools, districts, and nation are facing today.
Ideally, we would have all students in kindergarten through second grade, who are
showing deficiencies in reading and math, receive the interventions they require through
the implementation of a push-in program. Waiting until they are in third grade is not the
solution to narrowing the achievement gaps these students have. Right now, this is what
my school is doing to remediate years of deficiencies. We start pulling out students from
other courses in third grade.
Reading remediation during the school day usually has been provided through a
push-in or pull-out program. Push-in models include a specialized teacher who co-
teaches and assists the teacher in the general classroom. On the other hand, the pull-out
program removes students from time-on-task (TOT) in one subject or another in their
classroom to work with a special teacher for a certain length of time (Shanahan, 2008).
After completing my Program Evaluation Proposal (PEP) and the Change
Leadership Plan (CLP), a few concerns arose with regards to how my school is trying to
close the achievement gap. During the 2012-2013 school year, we developed a real
concern for closing the achievement gap in reading. As a result, school leaders decided
to use two reading resource teachers to pull students from class. This was done
throughout the day so students would receive an additional 30 to 45 minutes of intense
reading instruction. The school pulled students during math, science, or social studies.
The adverse effect was that students were missing TOT in those subjects, making it hard
for them to sustain their learning in those areas.
3
For example, in my school the number of students meeting high standards on the
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) for reading and science showed
improvement. However, a closer look at the testing data for those specific students who
were in the 5th
grade and receiving interventions through the pull-out program and
missing TOT in math, science, and social studies, is concerning. When I analyzed the 56
students who received reading interventions, the number of students meeting high
standards in reading who previously scored at a level 1 or 2 went from 0 to 34%. These
students were receiving their required 90-minute reading block and an additional 30 to 45
minute block of time each day for a reading pull-out program. Although the pull-out
program was able to raise the reading achievement scores for 34% of the students, 66%
of the students once again received a level 1 or 2 on the FCAT reading.
When examining math and science scores carefully, of the 11 students who were
pulled from science instruction, only one student or 9% passed the science portion of the
FCAT with a level three. Of the 45 students who were being pulled during math
instruction, only 40% of the students scored a three or higher on the math portion of the
FCAT. Furthermore, of those same 45 students who were being pulled during math
instruction, 15 students went down a level or more on the FCAT math test. Therefore,
the pull-out program appeared to have an adverse effect on the students who were
missing TOT from science and math.
Currently, there is an ideological shift occurring in education. The focus of
education politics has shifted from equality issues to issues related to proficiency,
accountability, and choice. Therefore, because of high stakes tests, like those related to
common core and the Florida Standards Assessments, it is important that students get the
4
required TOT to master skills in all areas beginning in elementary school. Providing
students with the TOT they need does show that it makes a difference on student
achievement.
Critical Issues
Two key policies that I will discuss in detail that relate to my program change are
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Response to
Instruction/Intervention (RtI) Implementation Plan. These two policies are crucial in the
discussion and implementation of policies that are currently in place that address
instruction in very important ways. Since the revision of the IDEA in 2004, there has
been a move toward the RtI model, or as it is now titled, the Multi-tiered Systems of
Support (MTSS). IDEA (2004) is a law that ensures specific services to children with
disabilities throughout our country. IDEA determines how states and public agencies
should provide early intervention, special education, and other related services to
individuals with disabilities.
In June of 2008, the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) published an RtI
Implementation Plan, which provided the framework to assist districts with critical
components as well as definitions and applications to support the development of school-
wide implementation. That plan, which was a reflection of the collective intent, marked
an important point in Florida’s development. Phase one of the implementation for
problem-solving and response to instruction came to a close in 2011. Phase two, of the
now called MTSS has emerged. Since this is a public policy change proposal concerning
how teachers provide additional support to struggling students, it should be known that
5
these two public policies direct local policy requirements and actions. One emerges from
the federal interest and the other from the FDOE.
The RtI model has become a customary organizational design for schools across
my school district. This model currently is being used for screening, identifying, and
placing students for intervention. Kame'enui (2007) stated that RtI schools will limit the
over-labeling of and misplacing problems associated with the special education system.
The RtI design will help lessen the load on the Exceptional Student Education (ESE)
classrooms that currently serve struggling readers who have no learning disability
(Montgomery, 2006).
According to the National Center on Response to Intervention, RtI is a multi-level
prevention system that includes 3 levels of intensity or prevention for students. “The
primary prevention level includes high quality core instruction. The secondary level
includes evidence-based intervention(s) of moderate intensity. The tertiary prevention
level includes individualized intervention(s) of increased intensity for students who show
minimal response to secondary prevention” (National Center on Response to
Intervention, 2013, para. 1).
The RtI model combines progress monitoring that is individualized to meet
student needs with a research-based intervention program provided within the classroom.
The goal of RtI is to reduce the number of students who are being labeled as having a
learning disability, when in actuality the student may just be a struggling with no actual
disability (Richards, Leafstedt, & Gerber, 2006). Early identification and prevention
programs offered through RtI have reduced reading problems by 70% nationally in the
primary grades (Responsiveness to Intervention and Learning Disabilities, 2005). These
6
findings support reading instruction to students in the general education classroom
(Montgomery, 2006).
While I briefly described RtI earlier, I feel it necessary to expand my previous
comments. RtI is a three-tiered approach to instruction and classification of students.
Tier one is a representation of all general education students who receive core classroom
instruction. Instruction is differentiated and utilizes strategies and materials that are
scientifically research-based to meet all student needs. Assessment, monitoring, and
interventions are all facilitated through the general education teacher. If students are in
need of interventions at the Tier 1 level, the general education teacher assists students
through small group instruction, differentiated instruction, or one-on-one assistance
(National Center on Response to Intervention, 2013).
Tier 2 is represented by students in the classroom who need modifications and
accommodations (National Center, 2013). Therefore, the classroom teacher uses
supplemental materials to further assist students with content. At this level, interventions
may occur in or out of the general education classroom. Progress monitoring of these
students occurs more frequently.
The last tier, or tier three, is described as students needing instruction that is
intense and continuous (National Center, 2013). According to the RtI model, this can
occur within the classroom by having another teacher push-in to give instruction or teach
students outside of the classroom where a group of students who are at the same level all
receive specialized help. During tier three interventions, students receive targeted
instruction for a minimum of two 30-minute sessions every week for nine to 12 weeks.
Tier two and three are very similar, the only major difference is that during tier three
7
interventions, the lessons are intensified, focused, frequent, and longer in length
(National Center on Response to Intervention, 2013).
Sad to say, not all students who are classified as a tier two and three on the MTSS
nationally are getting the additional support needed. Interventions are not being given to
them and therefore these individual students are “falling through the cracks.” As a result,
they keep falling further behind in their academics. For those students who are receiving
the additional interventions, there is not enough support given to them and therefore they
too are unable to catch up. The current approach of teaching students who have not
mastered one standard a week for 30 minutes is not working as indicated by the FCAT
scores I reported earlier. Without additional time in our school day, this approach will
never work as intended.
Closing the achievement gap is something all schools strive to achieve. For Title
I schools like mine, it means that the majority of students within the school are
disadvantaged enough to qualify for free or reduced price lunches and in general have
more learning deficits. However, Title I schools do receive further funding to aid the
students with resources to insure equity in the quality of instruction needed for academic
success. At my school, we had a real concern for reading and using Title I funding we
added two reading resource teachers to assist in closing the achievement gap during the
2012-2013 school year. Although reading scores went up, our math scores went down
because these students were missing TOT from subjects like math and science. This
adverse effect caused our administrative team to change the roles of the resource
teachers. This year, we have two math resources teachers and one reading resource
teacher since we have a greater need now for math.
8
Recommended Policy and Envisioned Effect
There are a variety of ways to define policy. Fowler (2004) identified seven
different definitions, ranging from very broad to very narrow definitions. Public policy
was defined as "the dynamic and value laden process through which a political system
handles a public problem. It includes a government's expressed intentions as well as its
consistent patterns of activity and inactivity" (Fowler, 2004, p. 9). Educational public
policy was described by Schott (2010) as “the written constitutions, laws, regulations,
and procedures as well as the unwritten continuous practices or courses of action that
govern and direct schools in what they do to fulfill their public vision, mission, and
purpose” (Unpublished).
My district is addressing elementary school remediation needs consistent with
both written federal and state laws and regulations and its practice is to allow individual
schools the choice of using either the pull-out or push-in schedules for this purpose.
There are numerous ways to address the issue I am dealing with in my policy advocacy
project. My policy proposal is to minimize the use of the pull-out program in elementary
schools for remediation in reading. I chose this position since I determined that it would
be unrealistic to eliminate the pull out option given the complexities of implementing
such a student scheduling mandate. However, I thought the latter would be less
problematic if I simply provided a more workable set of options that would best protect
the learning time for students in all academic core subject areas
There are four options that would provide the necessary reading remediation
without having students miss TOT on other subjects. These options are to implement a
9
push-in program; provide remediation during non-core academic times, such as physical
education, music, and art; implement the collaborative specialization model in the
intermediate grade levels; or implement both the push-in program with collaborative
specialization in intermediate grade levels.
Currently, pulling third through fifth grade students from their core subjects of
math, science, and social studies is not the answer as these students already have years of
deficiencies. Moreover, I believe if these students had received the required interventions
without missing core content, the gap would likely have been much narrower, resulting in
greater mastery and success. My recommended program and policy change of decreasing
the use of a pull-out program for remediation will address this latter problem. It is
designed to help teachers assist their MTSS tier 2 and 3 students within their classroom
without having them pulled out.
The first option mentioned is the implementation of a push-in program. Program
changes consistent with my policy recommendation might include assigning one resource
teacher to each grade level, using funds provided by the school district. This resource
teacher would serve as an additional person to push-in to classrooms on a daily basis and
work with students classified on the MTSS at tier 2 or 3. Students currently are missing
more than 25 minutes a week of instruction because they are traveling from their
homeroom classroom to a resource teacher’s classroom. I contend that having an
additional person in the classroom to serve the needs of all students would be a better
solution.
In the second option, all students would be given a waiver, requiring their parents’
signature to participate during their 30 to 45 minutes of special areas of instruction that
10
presently include art, music, physical education, to go to additional remediation classes or
special assistance programs, such as English speakers of other languages (ESOL) and
ESE. Another public policy that relates to the latter change is the 2013 Florida Statutes,
Chapter 1008: Assessment and Accountability. The statute states that parents must be
notified of any reading deficiency as well as the schools progression plan for the student.
Our students now must have parental consent in order to waive the required 150 minutes
a week for physical education.
The third option would be to implement in grades 3 through 5, the collaborative
specialization model I helped develop and implement as part of my Program Evaluation
Project. Collaborative specialization is defined as a group of teachers who are paired in
collaborative teams. In my study, one team consisted of all teachers teaching English
language arts and social studies. The second team consisted of math and science
teachers. The other collaborative team included two different content area teachers who
were sharing the same group of students within the day.
My study showed that this model works because it improves instruction and
learner outcomes. Teachers were able to provide more rigorous lessons and had the
opportunity to plan more effectively as they were only responsible to teach two subjects.
Teachers were able to become more specialized in the content areas they taught and were
able to provide deeper understanding of standards since they became “experts” in their
content areas. Moreover, teachers using this model of instruction were able to focus on
two subjects instead of all subjects, and were able to spend more time developing plans
with fewer time constraints.
11
Of the four strategies I have described, the greatest potential lies in combining the
collaborative specialization model with the push-in program. Implementing a push-in
program as well as a collaborative specialization model in the intermediate grade levels
would provide students with more rigorous content and aid them in becoming more
proficient in all content areas. By incorporating the push-in program with the
collaborative specialization model of instruction, teachers would be able to focus even
more on the struggling students and support their individual needs. The grade level
resource coach would be able to sit with the tier 2 and 3 students and provide them with
assistance while the teacher is providing whole group instruction. The resource teacher
would have content knowledge and be able to plan with teachers and collaborate to meet
the needs of the students within the classroom environment. Therefore, these struggling
students would not be missing TOT for remediation, but would be receiving grade level
content with the assistance needed almost simultaneously.
These two strategies working together could greatly alleviate the challenge of
providing intensive reading instruction without pulling students because of the more
effective and efficient use of time in teaching all subjects. Students would not be missing
TOT to receive any required remediation and miss valuable instructional time in their
core academic areas. The latter would result from more joint planning by teachers to
teach reading in the content areas. Moreover, this recommendation would minimize the
gap with struggling students as they would be given adequate interventions that lead to
improved scores in reading, math, science, and writing.
My policy change proposal and suggested program changes to help implement it
would not violate federal or state laws or my district’s current policies, but would be fully
12
compliant with them. However, not all public policy is in written form. One’s practices
over time become in fact, if not by law, the district or school policy. Currently my school
district follows the state’s policy of using RtI and MTSS to identify students and place
them into the appropriate support system. However, our schools have no written board
policy on how students are to obtain the support they require. Therefore, the unwritten
policy is schools may implement the prescribed laws and related regulations in whatever
way they choose. County wide, schools are using a variety of ways to meet the needs of
their students that represent a variety of practices that become independent school
policies. Some schools are using pull-out programs, others are using push-in programs;
yet others do both to meet the needs of all learners.
Currently at my school, the practice is to have students pulled for reading and
math, up to two times a week, and pushed-in for the math block, once a week for 30
minutes. In my judgment, this practice is not working well. Students are not receiving
the additional TOT to gain the information they are missing in their core subjects in order
to close the achievement gap. My proposal is to reduce and in the future, possibly
eliminate the pull-out program as an option. To do that, I would submit for approval the
four optional implementation strategies presented in this document along with the
admonition to minimize the use of the push-in program except when used in my
collaborative specialization model or other such model that insures little if any student
loss of instructional time in the core academic areas. My policy change proposal would
be a positive step forward in helping all our struggling students meet the state standards
for all subjects as indicated by their performance on FCAT or any other state assessment.
13
My policy would require reading remediation be delivered through an alternative
strategy. Pulling students out of other classes for remediation would be discouraged.
Remediation options for students could not take needed instructional time from math,
science, or social studies. Therefore, the pull-out program would be diminished and a
push-in program with the addition of collaborative specialization or some comparable
schedule that provides students with the necessary TOT in core academic courses, would
be required.
14
SECTION TWO: NEEDS ANALYSIS
Moral/Ethical Analysis
On January 8, 2002, George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) act. The law states that all children must be highly proficient in their learning.
With the passage of this law, the State of Florida began developing higher standards of
accountability and more recently raised the bar even higher with the adoption of its own
version of the Common Core Standards, the Florida Standards. In addition, it is requiring
all districts and schools to hire highly qualified teachers in all the core subjects (NCLB,
2002). Although schools are trying to meet the challenge of NCLB, schools really have
no clear answer to solving the numerous issues that revolve around closing the
achievement gap they face.
As a fifth grade teacher, it is hard to close the achievement gap of my students
when they are three or more grade levels behind. There has to be a better solution for
these students. This issue of closing the achievement gap has been on my school
district’s radar for years. In fact, schools across our nation have been trying numerous
strategies to close the achievement gap, but with limited success. Different programs are
being purchased for schools that use a variety of strategies and or resources to help all
students succeed. For example, this year at my school we have transitioned from having
two reading resource teachers to having one resource teacher who pulls students from
class. Since math scores declined, we have a new math resource teacher who pulls
students as well as a push-in strategy for extra student support. Our specials rotation
system also was altered. Instead of students going to the computer lab, students now are
receiving an additional 30 to 40 minutes of math lab time once every 8 days.
15
My proposed policy, program, and strategy changes would likely advance the
values of equality of opportunity and equity. Economically disadvantaged students
would benefit greatly since they are the majority of the individuals who are classified as
needing the most interventions (Early Education for All, 2005 & Nelson, 2006). By
establishing my proposed policy change, students have a better opportunity to learn more
and become self-sufficient individuals who are capable of increasing their knowledge and
skills in all subject areas and meeting the demands presented by each grade level as they
move toward high school completion and beyond.
Equity is a moral imperative that cannot be ignored when educating students. The
pull-out programs cause students to lose valuable learning opportunities in core subjects.
It is not fair to deprive these students from learning in more depth the core subject areas
and cause them to fail to receive the knowledge and understanding they provide.
Students who are pulled from core subjects will never be able to catch up to their
counterparts who remain in class for the entire time.
Education Analysis
All students are capable of learning, if they are given the opportunity and support
they need to succeed. Not all students learn the same way or at the same rate. Research
shows that early childhood education is very important to schooling readiness and can
reduce the very damaging learning gap starting in the primary grades (Rouse, Brooks-
Gunn, & McLanaha, 2005). Research also shows that students who go to pre-
kindergarten have less of a probability of being retained (Early Education for All, 2005.).
A 20 year research study indicated that the most critical aspect of the cortex
development in is mental stimulation around the age of 4 (Jha, 2012). A child’s
16
education essentially begins right when they are born. According to an analysis on the
development of nerve tissues, the critical period of development and growth of the nerve
tissues is between the ages of 4 to 6 years. During that time, the nerves travel at rapid
speeds and the progress will slow down as children reach 75% of their growth (Jha,
2012).
Since the prime time for a child to learn is during their pre-school and primary
years, the best strategy in closing the achievement gap is to provide them with the skills
they need to be proficient as early as possible. As they start elementary school, there
should be a lesser gap to address. However, we cannot wait for those results to come
through the educational pipe line because the gaps that exist now still need to be targeted.
Attacking the gap in elementary school requires TOT for all subjects. Push-in strategies
show promise for doing that and pull-out has the opposite effect.
Social Analysis
When trying to make any type of public policy or program change, it is important
to have clear communication with all the stakeholders involved. Stakeholders must see
the urgency in making this change for the greater good and take ownership for the
transition to work properly. For example, to make the above happen in relation to my
proposed policy, establishing a committee with parents, teachers, administrators, business
members, and community members would be ideal so everyone can be involved in the
process and decision making. The impact of such involvement would be the social
benefits of all working together to address an issue of great importance to the education
of all students in all subjects. The policy work could lead to a greater probability of
17
young people having future learning and occupational success. This is the ultimate
societal gain.
While my topic is about pulling students for reading or the problem involves other
areas as well, including ESE students. The National Joint Committee on Learning
Disabilities (1993) stated that if students are provided with the appropriate support within
the inclusive classroom setting, those individual students can achieve academically.
Therefore, if disabled students are able to make academic achievement gains in an
inclusive environment, all students with or without a disability should also gain
academically and avoid the “felt” emotional stigma of being taken out of class for special
services of any kind. Many of these students who are being pulled-out feel embarrassed
because their peers are aware that they are receiving remediation. Additionally, these
same students return to class feeling lost as they do not understand what their classmates
are working on and the new material that was taught. When students remain in the same
classroom and receive remediation integrated with what is being taught in a small group
with a resource teacher, the feelings of belonging can remain intact. These students
would begin to feel they are learning more in the general education classroom and have a
sense of belonging.
Maximizing opportunities to participate in society is greatly enhanced when
children are provided with a quality education (Hehir, 2005). All learners require
respectful, powerful, and engaging schoolwork to develop their individual capacities so
they can become fulfilled and productive members of society (Tomlinson, 1999). Full
inclusion, where a child is able to remain with their classmates, has shown to have a more
18
positive impact on children’s learning and lives as they become active members of
society.
Political Analysis
Over the past 30 years there have been multiple educational policies from the
federal, state, and local levels that have been enacted and implemented designed to help
all students succeed. These policies were all derived from public debate and ultimately,
political action. All students have the ability to learn some things if they are given the
right tools and strategies to do so. The belief reflected in these federal policies, like
NCLB and IDEA, have as their focus the support of providing an equal and fair education
to all students. In Florida, we have incorporated the MTSS process to help identify
students in need and aid them before their academic gaps are too wide. At my school, the
district, and across Florida, the shift was not received with open arms. The problem was
that many districts were not enthusiastic about the changes in part because they were
faced with making one more system change among the others handed down by the state
and federal governments to implement across an entire district.
When creating changes, it is vital that all stakeholders are involved in the process
and are able to see the reasons behind the needed change. When more support for a
policy is given, it is much easier for policy makers to approve and sign something into
law, or at the local level, adopt policies, rules, and regulations. During the past couple of
years, there has been a change in how citizens and schools must work together. The
traditional approach of engaging our community members has left citizens with a feeling
of disconnect and detachment. The message they received is, “trust us and leave us alone
to do our job of educating your children” (Johnson, 2008, p. 2). As Cunningham (2002)
19
noted, “School districts, more than ever, are realizing that they are dependent upon
community support to meet the mandated state and national performance standards,
develop innovative programs, and secure financial resources” ( p. 157).
The policy change I am suggesting will affect the range of choices designed to
serve students’ needs. In addition to receiving push-in instruction that would be at a tier
2 or 3 or other optional strategies I mentioned earlier, students could receive other special
assistance they may need. If they needed ESE or ESOL support, this could be provided
along with reading. This is particularly true if schools used the previously described
collaborative specialization model I studied and recommended. The time could be
scheduled by collaborative teams of teachers on an as need basis, utilizing the core course
content.
That being noted, my emphasis is on reading because it currently is demanding
most of the pull-out time. If students need additional remedial work, they would have
another option. They could take a reading remediation program instead of the regular
specials (science and math labs) they have at their school. Currently, students at my
school have an 8-day rotation where they go to music, art, science lab, math lab, and
physical education classes every other day. To stay in compliance with Florida statutes,
there must be some communication with our parents and the community to inform them
about the suggested choices they have in determining how remediation must and can be
scheduled.
The 2011 Florida statue, 1003.455, subsection three states,
Each district school board shall provide 150 minutes of physical education each
week for students in kindergarten through grade 5 and for students in grade 6 who
20
are enrolled in a school that contains one or more elementary grades so that on
any day during which physical education instruction is conducted there are at least
30 consecutive minutes per day. (The Florida Senate, 2014)
Therefore, if students are getting pulled for tier 3 intervention from their physical
education classes, the required minutes would not be met. However, Chapter 1003
section 455 of the Florida Statutes states that students can be exempt from physical
education classes. Subsection four reads as follows:
The requirement in subsection (3) shall be waived for a student who meets one of
the following criteria: (a) The student is enrolled or required to enroll in a
remedial course. (b) The student’s parent indicates in writing to the school that:
1. The parent requests that the student enroll in another course from among those
courses offered as options by the school district; or 2. The student is participating
in physical activities outside the school day which are equal to or in excess of the
mandated requirement. (The Florida Senate, 2014)
As a result, parents may sign a waiver to exempt their child from taking physical
education in in order to take a remedial course.
Even with the above options, my policy change of implementing the push-in
model of instruction will likely be met with much resistance. Staff members tend to
resist someone coming into their classroom to assist students as would happen under the
push-in strategy. They feel that both teachers would be competing for the student’s
attention. However, some staff members, the ones who have experienced the positive
impact of my push-in model, would prefer it. Currently, the district has no set model and
as a result, principals are given the choice to decide which model works best for their
21
individual school sites. I believe that by creating a clear plan that permits both the push-
in and pull-out model, but only discourages the latter without using my collaborative
specialization model or similar student schedule, would cause less concern about my
proposal.
Economic Analysis
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is entitled, Title I-
Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantage (U.S. Department of
Education, 2014). The purpose of Title I is, “to ensure that all children have a fair, equal,
and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum,
proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic
assessments” (U.S. Department of Education, 2014, Section 1001. Statement of Purpose).
Using Title I funds, my school has had the flexibility it needs to develop the programs
our students require in order to close the achievement gap. As stated before, students
who are minorities and or economically disadvantaged, usually struggle throughout their
educational careers (Early Education for All, 2005 & Nelson, 2006). Therefore, funds
are provided to ensure a more equal playing field for all students. For example, the
school in my community where I live does not have a great need for resource teachers
compared to the school where I teach that has a greater need. In fact, my local school
does not have any resource teachers. Additionally, the MTSS framework is funded by
the State of Florida, Department of Education, Division of Public Schools, Bureau of
Exceptional Education and Student Services (BEESS). The funds come to the state and
district from federal discretionary dollars under the auspices of IDEA and can be used to
22
help schools fund my proposed policy and program changes to acquire the staff and
resources needed to support the push-in program.
The policy that I am envisioning would not require more classroom teachers. It
would require six new resource teacher positions. However, there would be a shift in the
current roles that some staff members currently play. Therefore, the implementation
would require additional funds, perhaps Title I, to pay for some of these positions needed
for this implementation. The number of staff members needed to make this policy a
reality would be a total of six resource teachers who would push-in to various classrooms
throughout the day and help struggling students. However, this is the need for only one
school. Those dollars would be significantly greater for all the other schools in the
district to implement the policy without reducing such costs by utilizing as much as
possible current staff positions and then dedicating Title I dollars to support any new
positions required. I am uncertain whether my policy can be implemented with no
additional cost by reallocating current resources. When a district can realize student
academic gains without increasing costs, the public would welcome it. However, the
financial implications will require more study to determine that.
Whatever the cost, there are some related cost avoidance economic
considerations. Certainly if students are improving their learning skills and subject area
knowledge, they are more likely to pass required tests and ultimately graduate from high
school. High school graduates on average make considerably more in lifetime income
than those that do not (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014). They can continue their
education in colleges, universities, and technical/vocational schools. Also they are less
likely to end up unemployed, incarcerated, or in the public welfare system. All of these
23
results will end up having a positive impact on our national, state, and local economies. I
believe the cost-benefit ratio would be significantly positive.
24
SECTION THREE: ADVOCATED POLICY STATEMENT
This section provides a definition of what my policy is advocating, which is
increasing student achievement for all students by allowing struggling students the
opportunity to have more TOT in core courses. My policy proposal is to minimize the
use of pull-out programs for reading remediation to those situations where a principal
seeks and receives district approval to use such a program and where provisions can be
made to ensure students have adequate TOT in all core subjects.
The push-in program for reading is the preferred strategy for reading remediation.
Elementary schools are encouraged in either case to develop schedules and strategies that
support the maximum amount of TOT for all core subjects of math, science, and social
studies, while accommodating non-reading remediation and other educational needs
requiring students' time within the regular hours of the school day. Furthermore, students
must be screened for reading deficiencies using the MTSS framework to identify students
in need of remediation according to their tier.
Next, I will explain the policies’ goals and objectives. I will ask the following:
Whose needs, values, and preferences are addressed by my advocated policy? On what
basis are the goals and objectives of my policy aims to achieve validation as being
appropriate and good (Browder, 1995)?
Goals and Objectives of the Policy
The ultimate goal of my program change would be to enhance the learning of all
students by providing them more TOT with remediation when students require it. When
students become competent in reading, it increases their capacity to learn more in all
other subject areas without sacrificing TOT in those other subjects. When students are
25
unable to read, there is an adverse effect on math, social studies, and science scores.
Students must be able to read in order to succeed in school, career, and life. Student
needs must be the top priority in all school districts and TOT in the latter academic areas
is critical and must be protected or even expanded to address the special knowledge and
skill needs of today’s and tomorrow’s world. Pulling out students to receive reading
instruction reduces their TOT in other subject areas and can cause the current
achievement gap to widen.
The pull-out program is not a sound strategy for remediation as it diminishes the
chances of students mastering content in those subjects where they are not present to
learn the material. There are many strategies that school districts could choose to try to
narrow the achievement gap between students. This is especially true for reading because
of its essential need for learning in all other subject areas. Of the four strategies I have
described, my preference is to implement a push-in program along with the collaborative
specialization model of departmentalization in the intermediate grade levels.
Collaborative specialization is a form of departmentalization that would provide
instruction at a more rigorous level as teachers are specialized in the two areas they teach.
Using this new model of instruction has proven to have great success with students since
teachers are able to provide deeper understanding of standards since they become
“experts” in their content areas. My earlier program evaluation indicated that teachers
using this model of instruction were able to focus on two subjects instead of all subjects
and to spend more time developing plans with fewer time constraints. The evaluation
also showed students would benefit from this structural change as teachers would be
specialized and students would be given more TOT. Finally, I discovered in my research
26
that the collaborative specialist model also resulted in lessons being more engaging,
relevant, and rigorous. I do not recommend the collaborative specialization model be
mandated, but it should be an option for all schools to use along with a push-in strategy
for remediation to deal with TOT needs.
Stakeholders Related to the Policy
The question to ask here is whose needs, values, and preferences are being
represented by the policy advocated. All stakeholders can relate to this policy. First,
students want to go to school and learn. When students are given a high quality
education, they are able to continue their education, become active citizens within their
communities, and have productive careers. Those students whose needs are met will be
able to graduate with college readiness knowledge and skills and step into the 21st
century ready to work and be engaged citizens. No longer would they have to take
preparatory or remedial courses in universities in order to start taking college courses.
Parents and community members also would benefit. Parents send their children
to school to learn. They want them to grow up with the knowledge and skills they need
to become successful in learning and life. Parents and community members would hope
that students would take advantage of their schooling opportunity.
Teachers also would see benefits from improved student achievement. They are
now receiving merit pay, which is based on student performance. Therefore, when
students have more TOT and are provided with the help they need in class, they can grow
academically and perform better on assessments. As a result, teachers would see
improved student performance. They will earn the respect of the students and parents
while maintaining employment and earning increased compensation.
27
The school and school district’s ultimate goal is to meet the needs of all of its
students. By incorporating my policy, I believe school districts would see the
achievement gap close. This would be all due to the increase in the amount of TOT in all
subjects.
Rationale for the Validity of the Policy
The goals and objectives are validated as appropriate and good for all
stakeholders. My policy would require that reading remediation be delivered through a
push-in strategy. Pulling students out of core content classes for remediation would be
discouraged. Remediation options for students should not take away needed instructional
time from math, science, or social studies. Therefore, a push-in program would need to
be implemented. Students generally want to succeed in life. However, when they get
pulled out of a subject for remediation and often fail to learn the content in the subject
missed and feel defeated by the system. If students are given the necessary resources to
learn, including sufficient TOT in all subject areas, they will improve academically.
28
SECTION FOUR: POLICY ARGUMENT
In putting together my doctoral policy advocacy document, I learned that most
policies have supporters and detractors. This is certainly true when it comes to the use of
the push-in or pull-out programs used to remediate students in any subject area. Districts,
schools, schools leaders, teachers, students, and parents all have different perspectives
and opinions when it comes to how to narrow the achievement gap. Some want longer
school days, years, or both; others believe that adding more reading or math recovery
courses will suffice. However, one thing is sure, the current way of doing things is not
working fast enough and in all honesty, may not be working at all. Something needs to
be done and what I propose has pros and cons as well as supporters and detractors that
must be considered.
Pros
Attacking the achievement gap in elementary school requires TOT for all
subjects. By eliminating the pull-out program, schools will provide students with more
TOT in all cores subject areas. Students will have the opportunity to learn more if they
are in class. Push-in strategies show promise for doing just that. If students are able to
receive assistance when in their class, they would not miss critical content that is being
covered. When students are being pulled, they are missing grade level material which is
not being covered with the pull-out teachers. The pull-out program usually targets
reading strategies to help students learn how to read and comprehend. They do not
address the lessons being taught within the class. If grade level resource coaches would
be able to push-in throughout the day, they would be of more use to struggling students
29
as they would be aiding them on grade level content that is being discussed in class as
well.
Another pro is that parents are given a choice to enroll their struggling student
into remedial courses. For example, if students need additional remedial work, they have
the option to take a math and or reading program instead of the regular specials of art,
music, physical education, math lab, or science lab that are offered at my school.
Therefore, those students would have the opportunity to get additional assistance in the
areas they are deficient in and not miss any grade level content since this remediation
would be occurring during their specials rotation.
Cons
The cons regarding this policy is the district might be unprepared for the type of
push-in schedule I am proposing and may lack the needed funds and resources. A con to
reducing the pull-out program is that many people would be resistant to changing the
current system. Many teachers believe that pushing in will cause disruption within their
class and will be unsupportive of the change. Another issue is the current minutes for
each course must be met by the district in order to be compliant with state laws. Students
in elementary school are required to have 150 minutes of physical education weekly.
Moreover, in order for students to receive pull-out services during their specials time,
there would have to be an end-of-course exam tied to it as the state of Florida requires
that all courses be tied to one. As a result, music, art, and physical education classes will
be giving end-of-course exams to students. How would this impact the students who
opted out of those classes? Would the state or district force them to take those tests
anyway?
30
All in all, for the push-in program to work effectively there must be a seamless
transition through integration with other subject areas in order to teach vocabulary and
concepts to students to increase student comprehension in all subjects. As school leaders,
it is our job to do the right thing for our students. It is not ethically or morally right to
look the other way on issues that must be changed. It is not right to ignore the situation
in hopes it will go away on its own. We have a problem with the current pull-out
program that must be changed completely in order to maximize TOT for students in all
core subjects.
31
SECTION FIVE: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The policy advocacy implementation plan would look similar to my Change
Leadership Plan. I would first meet with school district and schools to inform them of
my findings. If approved, I would work with any school or district in the implementation
and set-up of the program. I would share data that has been collected so school leaders
could review and consider what they may do as a result of the implementation. Schools
that are looking to implement the change could form professional learning communities
(PLCs) to develop a plan.
Kotter and Cohen (2002) described eight critical steps in the change process. The
first calls for creating sense of urgency for change. I intend to focus on the first four
steps through this study by (a) increasing the sense of staff urgency by focusing on
student results in losing TOT in selected academic areas and developing staff interest in
change to enhance instruction by (b) building a team of teachers to explore the pull-out
program as well as the push-in through this study and beyond, (c) creating a joint
compelling vision of a pull-in program alternative, and (d) developing a clear message of
the needs and alternatives to all staff and beyond.
Wagner et al. (2006) stated that a successful leadership transformation requires
sharpening capacities within individuals and the organization. Leaders need to
understand why it is so hard for organizations and individuals to change. “Leaders must
learn how to take action effectively to help our organizations actually become what they
need and want to be” (Wagner et al., 2006, p. xvi). By using this framework, leaders
would be able to develop a communication plan to help staff members see the problem,
32
understand the need, attain a sense of urgency, feel and be part of the solution, and
understand the ultimate goal as attainable.
33
SECTION SIX: POLICY ASSESSMENT PLAN
If my policy is adopted, I recommend there be a implementation specialist placed
in charge of the policy at the district level. This individual would be in charge of
communicating the policy, its options, and how to work together as a staff to implement
it. This person could work with each school on implementing the plan. They would
work with school leaders to set up professional development plans for the reading push-in
teachers on an individual basis since each school site may have different needs.
Additionally, schools would need to work with their professional learning communities to
review and alter the plan that was developed once they receive assessment data.
The implementation specialist would oversee the monitoring of each school
implementing a plan. However, I also recommend that each school site have a
coordinator in charge of collecting data on a weekly basis as well as overseeing the other
push-in resource teachers at that location. Push-in teachers would work with students
who have been classified on the MTSS as a tier 2 or 3. Monitoring the progress of these
students is the key to success. Therefore, all push-in resource teachers must be provided
with staff development on the integration of reading within all subjects so that students
are given the best education possible without having to be pulled out. Professional
development would be provided by the district specialist as well as the school site
specialist.
The implementation specialist would work hand-in-hand with each school
coordinator and the resource teachers to collect and analyze student data on a monthly
basis. This would allow for the staff to make the necessary changes to improve
instruction. During these data analysis meetings, the coordinator, resource teachers, and
34
specialist would assess whether or not the implementation of the program is effective and
if it was organized and used with fidelity. Finally, it is important that the staff assess
continually FCAT and other assessments for reading, science, and math (perhaps an End
of Subject Area exam for social studies) in order to review the progress being made in
achievement growth and the impact on the achievement gap.
While my recommendation includes the collaborative specialization plan I
developed through my PEP, I want to make it clear that I will address the need later for a
school-wide committee to work with me in determining how my school should proceed
under the newly adopted policy. This will include looking at the four options and any
others that might emerge from the process as well as assess staffing and other needs for
the programs.
35
SECTION SEVEN: POLICY IMPACT STATEMENT
Students across the United States are falling behind and there is no clear vision on
how to stop this from happening. Educators across the nation have tried different
strategies to try and narrow their schools’ achievement gaps. However, nothing has
worked. We go into teaching thinking that if everyone does what they are supposed to do
all students would do better in school. Sadly, that is not the case. What can we do to
narrow the achievement gaps between students of various backgrounds? This was the
driving question in the creation of my Program Evaluation Plan, Change Leadership Plan,
and now my Policy Advocacy Document.
My policy would require that reading remediation be delivered primarily through
a push-in strategy. Pulling students out of other classes for remediation would be
minimized. Remediation options for students must not take needed instructional time
from reading, math, science, or social studies. Therefore, the pull-out program must be
secondary to a push-in program.
The ultimate goal of my program change would be to enhance the learning of all
students by providing them more TOT with remediation when students require it. When
students are unable to read, there is an adverse effect on math, social studies, and science
scores. Students must be able to read to become academically competent enough to
succeed in life. Student needs must be the top priority in all school districts. However,
pulling students out of core classes to receive reading services reduces their TOT in other
subject areas and causes the achievement gap to widen. The pull-out program is not
acceptable as a sole strategy for remediation as it diminishes the chances of students
mastering the content from the missed classes. There are many strategies that school
36
districts could choose to use to narrow the achievement gap. Of the four strategies I
described, the option I recommend is a combination of a push-in program and the
collaborative specialization model in the intermediate grade levels.
By implementing the collaborative specialization model of instruction in the
intermediate grade levels, all students would be provided with instruction that is more
rigorous and differentiated as teachers are specialized in the two areas they teach. My
research indicated that this new model of instruction could be successful with students.
One indicator is that teachers were able to provide deeper understanding of standards
since they became “experts” in their content areas. Moreover, teachers using this model
of instruction were able to focus on two subjects instead of all subjects, and were able to
spend more time developing plans with fewer time constraints.
By incorporating the push-in program with the above model, teachers would be
able to focus even more on the struggling students and support their individual needs.
The grade level resource coach would be able to assist students who are classified at a tier
2 or 3 and offer these students assistance as the teacher is providing whole group
instruction. Since the resource teacher would be planning along with the teacher, they
would be able to prepare ahead in order to get the students where they need to be and
become proficient. Therefore, these struggling students would not be missing TOT for
remediation by getting pulled-out, but would be getting grade level content with the
assistance needed at their fingertips.
In my opinion, diminishing the pull-out program would be the most effective and
best policy to close the achievement gap and provide students with the best education
possible. When students are given the time they need to learn, they will learn. Moreover,
37
if everyone does what is expected of them, students would be better served, achievement
scores would be enhanced, and knowledge levels in all subjects would increase.
What and whose values are at the center of the policy? Simply, all stakeholders
would benefit from my policy. However, the students are at the center of this policy
change. Students go to school to learn. When students are given an adequate education,
they are able to graduate and continue their educations in colleges, universities, and other
post-secondary education institutions and become active citizens within the community,
have productive careers, and enjoy a positive lifestyle.
Others who also are involved and would benefit from this policy change would be
parents and community members. Parents send their children to school to learn and get
an education. They want them to grow up with the skills they need in order to become
successful in life and living. For example, parents and community members would hope
that students, when given access to high quality education, would be able to carry on an
effective conversation and discussion, and become collaborative and independent lifelong
learners.
Finally, schools also would see benefits to educating more effectively students.
Teachers today are getting merit pay, which is based on student performance. Therefore,
if students are provided more TOT and the help they need in class, they would learn more
and perform better on assessments. As a result, teachers would see their students’
performance increase. My school district’s ultimate goal is to meet the needs of all of its
students. Through my policy, I believe the school district would see the achievement gap
close due to the increase in the amount of TOT for all subjects.
38
The implementation of the policy is consistent with the vision behind it. Teachers
and school leaders must first see the urgency for the change in order for the change to
happen. Then, the slow process of the change must occur. The buy-in from the staff and
school community will make the implementation a success.
39
REFERENCES
Browder, L. H. (1995). An alternative to the doctoral dissertation: The policy advocacy
concept and the policy document. Journal of School Leadership, 5, 40-69.
Retrieved from https://rowman.com/page/JSL
Cunningham, C. (2002, April). Engaging the community to support student success.
ERIC Digest, 157-159. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/
ERIC-ED464395/pdf/ERIC-ED464395.pdf
Early Education for All. (2005). Early childhood education: A strategy for closing the
achievement gap. Retrieved from http://www.strategiesforchildren.org/eea/
6reasearch_summaries/07_AchievementGap.pdf
Florida Department of Education. (2008). Statewide response to instruction/intervention
(RtI) implementation plan. Retrieved from http://www.florida-
rti.org/floridamtss/RtI.pdf
Florida Senate. (2014). 2011 Florida statues. Retrieved from http://www.flsenate.gov/
laws/statutes/2011/1003.455
Fowler, F. C. (2004). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (2nd
ed.).
New York, NY: Pearson.
Hehir, T. (2005). New directions in special education: Eliminating ableism in policy
and practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Jha, A. (2012). Childhood stimulation key to brain development, study finds. Retrieved
from http://www.theguardian.com/
40
Johnson, P.A. (2008). Community engagement? Let’s dance! In ERS Spectrum, The
superintendent's briefing book: Vital information for school district leaders (pp.1-
8). Alexandria, VA: Educational Research Service.
Kame'enui, E. (2007). A new paradigm. Responsiveness to intervention. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 39(5), 6-7. Retrieved from http://www.journals.cec.sped.org
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people
change their organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Montgomery, J. (2006). Current status of evidence-based practices for low-incidence
disabilities: Introduction to the special series. Communication Disorders
Quarterly, 28(1), 37-38. Retrieved from http://cdq.sagepub.com/
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2013). Multi-level prevention system.
Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/categorycontents/
multi-level_prevention_system.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1993). Providing appropriate
education for students with learning disabilities in regular education classrooms.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(5), 330-332. doi:10.1177/
002221949302600505
Nelson, A. (2006). Closing the gap: Early childhood education. The achievement gap:
early childhood education. 45. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/
publications/newsletters/policy-priorities/apr06/num45/toc.aspx
No Child Left Behind Act. (2002). Public Law 107-110-2002. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/
Richards, C., Leafstedt, J., & Gerber, M. (2006). Qualitative and quantitative
41
examination of four low-performing kindergarten English learners:
Characteristics of responsive and non-responsive students. Remedial and Special
Education, 27(4), 218-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270040301
Responsiveness to Intervention and Learning Disabilities. (2005). National Joint
Committee on Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/
advocacy/RTI%20Final%20August%202005.pdf
Rouse, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., & McLanahan, S. (2005). Closing the achievement gaps. The
future of children. Retrieved from http://futureofchildren.org/
Shanahan, T. (2008). Implications of RTI for the Reading Teacher. D. Fuchs, L.S.
Fuchs, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Response to Intervention (pp. 105-122). Newark,
DE: International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://www.wrsd.net/
literacy/resources/implicationsofrti.pdf
Statues. (2013). Public Law 1008.25. Retrieved from http://leg.state.fl.us/
Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all
learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). Employment Projections. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Title I - Improving the academic achievement of
the disadvantaged. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/
pg1.html
Wagner, T., Kegan, R., Lahey, L., Lemons, R. W., Garnier, J., Helsing, D., Rasmussen,
H. T. (2006). Relating the parts to the whole. In Change leadership: A practical
42
guide to transforming our schools (1st ed., pp. 97-122). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.